(He actually always got great reviews and had packed houses during his run!)
Mufasa
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
Well, I would agree with him if he thinks it can change people’s perceptions in a wide variety of countries (including some in MENA).
[/quote]
Basic infrastructure and healthcare are necessary for a stable functioning state but they won’t change perceptions in MENA. It won’t change perceptions anywhere where people are radicalised and indoctrinated. The Montagnard tribesman in what was South Vietnam looked to their government and then to the Americans to protect them. They had a shared interest. Providing them with healthcare, veterinary care, living with them and fortifying their villages - these things DID change perceptions. But Vietnam was abandoned. This is just one example. That’s not to say that these things are not part of the process of nation building in MENA - but that they won’t provide any benefit in terms of changing perceptions. The people in MENA whose perceptions could be changed are those who have a shared interest - minorities and secular reformists.
But the West has no credibility as potential friends in the ME see what’s happening to the Iranian exiles in Camp Ashraf for example. I wonder how many people in the West care about the written guarantee the U.S. gave to protect these exiles. This is where perceptions are really changed.
I agree. But there are many instances where you cannot expect to change perceptions. Hezbollah and Syria bring civil war, chaos, sectarianism, terrorism and Islamic extremism to Lebanon. The fact that they control the south of the country and have hospitals doesn’t mean that they have gained support from that.
[quote]
Also, I don’t know much about AusAid or the Ozzie version of WorldVision, but WorldVision is an AMAZING organization that works in parts of the world where no one else would go. They have had some issues over the years, but given their size and scope that seems inevitable. I hope you can agree on the quality of that particular organization. I don’t work for them but I have worked with them in the past. I have only the nicest things to say about them. Sorry for the rant. http://www.worldvision.org/content.nsf/about/aboutus-home [/quote]
Both AusAid and World Vision do great work. But there are major institutional problems with both organisations and with the United Nations aid and development programs. I won’t go into it now. But one example is that - because they(WorldVision) employ local staff and politicised staff in political hotspots they have become discreditable in those places:
“…has highly politicized agenda under the guise of “development assistance and justice”; active in promoting crude anti-Israel propaganda in the UN framework.”
Don’t take that as me saying I’m against aid and development or contributing to charities that fund aid and development.
Take the “http://” off those links to fix the tag situation
EDIT: Maybe it’s not like that anymore.
It was the end quote directly next to the last link. The quote came up as part of the link name.
Cool =]
[quote]ZEB wrote:
If we do not elect a man who has the experience to turn this mess around we are in big trouble. Some of you guys need to look past your personal preference and toward the only man who has executive leadership in both business and government. That man is Romney, the only guy in the race with such experience.[/quote]
I don’t agree that Romney’s Cayman Islands-style corporatism and his flip-flopping, self-interested political career are indicative of someone who can turn the economy around.
@GL - William Easterly, The Cartel of Good Intentions: The Problem of Bureaucracy in Foreign Aid:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
Well, I would agree with him if he thinks it can change people’s perceptions in a wide variety of countries (including some in MENA).
[/quote]
Basic infrastructure and healthcare are necessary for a stable functioning state but they won’t change perceptions in MENA. It won’t change perceptions anywhere where people are radicalised and indoctrinated. The Montagnard tribesman in what was South Vietnam looked to their government and then to the Americans to protect them. They had a shared interest. Providing them with healthcare, veterinary care, living with them and fortifying their villages - these things DID change perceptions. But Vietnam was abandoned. This is just one example. That’s not to say that these things are not part of the process of nation building in MENA - but that they won’t provide any benefit in terms of changing perceptions. The people in MENA whose perceptions could be changed are those who have a shared interest - minorities and secular reformists.
But the West has no credibility as potential friends in the ME see what’s happening to the Iranian exiles in Camp Ashraf for example. I wonder how many people in the West care about the written guarantee the U.S. gave to protect these exiles. This is where perceptions are really changed.
I agree. But there are many instances where you cannot expect to change perceptions. Hezbollah and Syria bring civil war, chaos, sectarianism, terrorism and Islamic extremism to Lebanon. The fact that they control the south of the country and have hospitals doesn’t mean that they have gained support from that.
[quote]
Also, I don’t know much about AusAid or the Ozzie version of WorldVision, but WorldVision is an AMAZING organization that works in parts of the world where no one else would go. They have had some issues over the years, but given their size and scope that seems inevitable. I hope you can agree on the quality of that particular organization. I don’t work for them but I have worked with them in the past. I have only the nicest things to say about them. Sorry for the rant. http://www.worldvision.org/content.nsf/about/aboutus-home [/quote]
Both AusAid and World Vision do great work. But there are major institutional problems with both organisations and with the United Nations aid and development programs. I won’t go into it now. But one example is that - because they(WorldVision) employ local staff and politicised staff in political hotspots they have become discreditable in those places:
“…has highly politicized agenda under the guise of “development assistance and justice”; active in promoting crude anti-Israel propaganda in the UN framework.”
Don’t take that as me saying I’m against aid and development or contributing to charities that fund aid and development.[/quote]
Thanks for the posts. I’d never seen “NGO monitor” before (and I’ve been on quite a few “M&E/accountability” sites) so it was good to learn about it. I think it is important to give “Israel’s side” and monitoring NGOs through that lens is an interesting tool. WV has had a lot of (justified) criticisms over the years, no need to bring them all up here; overall though, we seem to agree about them and the role of development in international relations and security.
Your arguments about development in MENA are fair. I’ve not really worked in that region. However, I have had friends who have. Your post reminds me that I need to get back in touch with them. I don’t know how they would respond to your points. Thanks for making me think.
This all started with a small post by Romney about “healthcare diplomacy.” It seems you didn’t like his tone, example, and location more than the idea itself. (unless I’m misunderstanding you). These are fair criticisms.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
@GL - William Easterly, The Cartel of Good Intentions: The Problem of Bureaucracy in Foreign Aid:
lol, I’ve linked to Easterly many times on these forums. I like the guy. I’ve read his books and seen him speak. I even am (still somewhat) affiliated with an NGO that tries to put his ideas into practice. I think he has made a very positive contribution to the “world” of international development.
'Course I disagree with him on some things as well. But this really isn’t the thread for that. 
Good post.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
If we do not elect a man who has the experience to turn this mess around we are in big trouble. Some of you guys need to look past your personal preference and toward the only man who has executive leadership in both business and government. That man is Romney, the only guy in the race with such experience.[/quote]
I don’t agree that Romney’s Cayman Islands-style corporatism and his flip-flopping, self-interested political career are indicative of someone who can turn the economy around.[/quote]
You make a good point. How could anyone who has many year of executive experience and has made about 300 million in the private sector understand how to help the economy. What we need is another legislator like Obama only conservative. Now that will fix things good and proper.
HA
If Romney takes Michigan and Arizona all of you Romney haters can pack it in because it’s OOOOOOOVER!!
[quote]ZEB wrote:
If Romney takes Michigan and Arizona all of you Romney haters can pack it in because it’s OOOOOOOVER!![/quote]
I don’t want it to be over because of all the amusement I have been getting out of this primary race.
However, I don’t think that both Santorum and Gingrich will give up so easily. One can only hope they stay in for the long haul.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
If we do not elect a man who has the experience to turn this mess around we are in big trouble. Some of you guys need to look past your personal preference and toward the only man who has executive leadership in both business and government. That man is Romney, the only guy in the race with such experience.[/quote]
I don’t agree that Romney’s Cayman Islands-style corporatism and his flip-flopping, self-interested political career are indicative of someone who can turn the economy around.[/quote]
You make a good point. How could anyone who has many year of executive experience and has made about 300 million in the private sector understand how to help the economy. What we need is another legislator like Obama only conservative. Now that will fix things good and proper.
HA[/quote]
Should the government be turned into a “for profit” organization though?
What do you think the pros-cons of such a government would be?
[quote]Christine wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
If Romney takes Michigan and Arizona all of you Romney haters can pack it in because it’s OOOOOOOVER!![/quote]
I don’t want it to be over because of all the amusement I have been getting out of this primary race.
However, I don’t think that both Santorum and Gingrich will give up so easily. One can only hope they stay in for the long haul.[/quote]
Well, if Romney takes Arizona and Michigan and because of those wins he wins big again on super Tuesday it’s over. Whether you enjoy the entertainment or not–It IS over.
Santorum and Gingrich can say their staying in until the convention but there will be no more debates and very little media coverage for them. So, it will be essentially over and they will move on most likely and if they don’t it won’t matter. They won’t go anywhere because the momentum for Romney will be off the charts. I trust you’ve seen how primaries work in the past? The only reason they are still in is because it looks like a horse race on its face. In a primary as soon as one candidate begins to pick up momentum (and delegates) the others start to fall away quite fast. It’s purely psychological as everyone wants to back a winner. As yet there is no clear winner as soon as there is (and no one knows if it happens here) that person pulls away fast. As primaries go this is not a particularly long one if it’s over by Super Tuesday. The Obama/Clinton primary was close until Obama pulled away in May.
What most people are falling for is the media hype about how this goes to a brokered convention. But that will not happen the odds are about a million to one against it. But the media must sell something, and right now it’s the republican primary. But as I said as primaries go this one is not that outstanding for any reason.
Now don’t get me wrong if for some reason Santorum and or Gingrich get their share of support on super Tuesday even though they both lose Arizona and Michigan that would be quite unique.
The media would love a brokered convention, but most pundints (on both sides) have pretty much said that this wont happen.
I just don’t think that they are willing to go down without fighting some more.
[quote]ranengin wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
If we do not elect a man who has the experience to turn this mess around we are in big trouble. Some of you guys need to look past your personal preference and toward the only man who has executive leadership in both business and government. That man is Romney, the only guy in the race with such experience.[/quote]
I don’t agree that Romney’s Cayman Islands-style corporatism and his flip-flopping, self-interested political career are indicative of someone who can turn the economy around.[/quote]
You make a good point. How could anyone who has many year of executive experience and has made about 300 million in the private sector understand how to help the economy. What we need is another legislator like Obama only conservative. Now that will fix things good and proper.
HA[/quote]
Should the government be turned into a “for profit” organization though?
What do you think the pros-cons of such a government would be?
[/quote]
We need a balanced budget and we need to curtail spending. Things that good business people must do. Now look around, I only see one man who has run a business (and did so quite successfully). And I only see one man who has executive experience. This is not being touted enough because the average schmo doesn’t really understand the difference. But in the real world Mitt Romney had some very smart people answering to him on a daily basis. He was at the top of both a business and government hierarchy. He knows how to make decisions and whom to place in positions of power to get things done. That’s what executives do. And that’s what Gingrich, Santorum and Obama have NEVER done. That’s one of the reasons why Obama is so ineffective. The job skills are not there!
We need a person who has had leadership experience, understands the economy and is able to help pull us out of this mess. All this nonsense about Romney not being conservative enough is touted by those who truly don’t understand many things, not the least of which is that we have to put politics aside and chose someone who can actually beat Obama and begin to turn this country around.
As a side note, I’d vote for a democrat if I thought that he had the potential to pull us out of this mess. We are in very bad shape and four more years of Obama might just about spell the end for the America that we all know. Obama said he was seeking fundamental change and given another four years with no electorate to answer to we’re going to have that change beginning with Obamacare. And I assure every hard working man and woman…
…YOU WILL NOT LIKE THAT CHANGE!
[quote]Christine wrote:
The media would love a brokered convention, but most pundints (on both sides) have pretty much said that this wont happen.
I just don’t think that they are willing to go down without fighting some more.[/quote]
It always looks that way just before the end. Candidates vow to take their fight to the convention and bla bla bla. But the simple fact is when they’re beaten they know they’re beaten and two main things happen (with some other less important ones) which causes them drop out if not in name then in deed:
-
The money dries up because their supporters feel the momentum shifting. Remember what I said about most wanting to vote for the winner? It goes double for those who are parting with their own money to support a candidate.
-
The media (as bad as they want to see a horse race down to the wire) stops covering the candidate. And suddenly he doesn’t matter anymore. He wants to debate but the front runner seeing tide shift declines. And who will care about a debate with two losers who combined don’t have even 10% of the delegates that the front runner has? Then the host for the debate knowing that few people care drops sponsorship.
This could all unfold in Mitt Romney’s favor based on what occurs this Tuesday. However, if he wins Arizona and drops Michigan to say Santorum the process continues on and super Tuesday is anybody’s guess.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]ranengin wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
If we do not elect a man who has the experience to turn this mess around we are in big trouble. Some of you guys need to look past your personal preference and toward the only man who has executive leadership in both business and government. That man is Romney, the only guy in the race with such experience.[/quote]
I don’t agree that Romney’s Cayman Islands-style corporatism and his flip-flopping, self-interested political career are indicative of someone who can turn the economy around.[/quote]
You make a good point. How could anyone who has many year of executive experience and has made about 300 million in the private sector understand how to help the economy. What we need is another legislator like Obama only conservative. Now that will fix things good and proper.
HA[/quote]
Should the government be turned into a “for profit” organization though?
What do you think the pros-cons of such a government would be?
[/quote]
We need a balanced budget and we need to curtail spending. Things that good business people must do. Now look around, I only see one man who has run a business (and did so quite successfully). And I only see one man who has executive experience. This is not being touted enough because the average schmo doesn’t really understand the difference. But in the real world Mitt Romney had some very smart people answering to him on a daily basis. He was at the top of both a business and government hierarchy. He knows how to make decisions and whom to place in positions of power to get things done. That’s what executives do. And that’s what Gingrich, Santorum and Obama have NEVER done. That’s one of the reasons why Obama is so ineffective. The job skills are not there!
We need a person who has had leadership experience, understands the economy and is able to help pull us out of this mess. All this nonsense about Romney not being conservative enough is touted by those who truly don’t understand many things, not the least of which is that we have to put politics aside and chose someone who can actually beat Obama and begin to turn this country around.
As a side note, I’d vote for a democrat if I thought that he had the potential to pull us out of this mess. We are in very bad shape and four more years of Obama might just about spell the end for the America that we all know. Obama said he was seeking fundamental change and given another four years with no electorate to answer to we’re going to have that change beginning with Obamacare. And I assure every hard working man and woman…
…YOU WILL NOT LIKE THAT CHANGE![/quote]
All good points.
If you were tasked (seriously) with picking R’s VP who would it be and why?
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]Christine wrote:
The media would love a brokered convention, but most pundints (on both sides) have pretty much said that this wont happen.
I just don’t think that they are willing to go down without fighting some more.[/quote]
It always looks that way just before the end. Candidates vow to take their fight to the convention and bla bla bla. But the simple fact is when they’re beaten they know they’re beaten and two main things happen (with some other less important ones) which causes them drop out if not in name then in deed:
-
The money dries up because their supporters feel the momentum shifting. Remember what I said about most wanting to vote for the winner? It goes double for those who are parting with their own money to support a candidate.
-
The media (as bad as they want to see a horse race down to the wire) stops covering the candidate. And suddenly he doesn’t matter anymore. He wants to debate but the front runner seeing tide shift declines. And who will care about a debate with two losers who combined don’t have even 10% of the delegates that the front runner has? Then the host for the debate knowing that few people care drops sponsorship.
This could all unfold in Mitt Romney’s favor based on what occurs this Tuesday. However, if he wins Arizona and drops Michigan to say Santorum the process continues on and super Tuesday is anybody’s guess. [/quote]
I know you’re probably right, but I’m not ready for the fun to come to an end! Let me have my hope.
“…Four more years of Obama might just about spell the end for the America that we all know…”
This is the type of hyperbole I don’t agree with, Zeb.
(But that’s okay; we can “agree to disagree”…)
Mufasa